Arizona Supreme Court holds that the Phoenix Civil Service Board does not have the appellate authority to decide the constitutionality of city policies, rules, or regulations, but it can consider whether the employee reasonably believed that the disciplined conduct was within her constitutional rights.
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, holds that individual plaintiffs and a neighborhood association lack standing to challenge a zoning decision permitting the relocation and digital conversion of billboards.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One holds that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the Tribe’s challenges to the Arizona Corporation Commission’s decision to provide transition assistance because the decision was not final.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two holds that a plaintiff who succeeds on a state Lemon Law claim against the seller of a used vehicle is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act if the plaintiff succeeds on an implied-warranty claim that fits within the definition of Magnuson-Moss.
Arizona Supreme Court holds that the anti-abrogation clause of the state’s Constitution does not protect common-law dram-shop liability because the anti-abrogation clause applies only to rights of action that either existed at common law or find their basis in the common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and Arizona did not adopt common-law dram-shop liability until 1983.